We all realize by now that the Lancaster District has hired Red Whiddon as a "facilitator" to help with the 2007 Bond election.

There is nothing illegal about this. The District can't advocate passage of a bond. That WOULD be illegal.

But they can facilitate.

Educate.

Inform.

Advise, promote, advertise, host community meetings, feed the voters sandwiches and softdrinks, distribute thousands of dollars worth of printed materials explaining how dire and desparate the need for more bond money RIGHT NOW is, explaining how stupid the (other) voters in the May 2006 election (who were in the majority) were, and how thoroughly the hundred million dollars in the February 2004 election have been squandered, (do I mean "squandered" or "invested" ? I get those words confused sometimes.). It's legal for the district to hire a handsome, calm, and professional-appearing spokesman to shake you firmly by the hand, look you squarely in the eye, and recite the careful script the district has laid before him. That's not advocacy.

It's not like the district was hanging signs on public right-of-ways along city streets or anything.

It's not like the district would use school resources to print flyers and district postage funds to flood your mailbox with ...

Oh.

Well, nevermind that.

The district does not do political advocacy. No schoold district would break Texas Law.

There is nothing illegal about any of this sort of bond package education or facilitating such meetings.


It's not illegal to hire a "facilitator" with a history of scope creep -- running up huge unanticipated expenses for overtime and hanging around for months after his service was supposed to be complete. And it's not illegal to bill a school district for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they bargained for.

But will the district pay? As far as I can tell, the 2006-07 budget makes no provision for Mr Whiddon's fees -- fixed, inflated, overtime, bonus or otherwise.

And I haven't seen the minutes of a meeting where the Board of Trustees approved his contract. (I might have missed it. But a Google search of the LancasterISD.org website turns up zilch as of this evening.)

Why should the Trustees pay Mr Whiddon?

And for that matter, why should the Lancaster taxpayers?